Posted on 11/20/2016 12:32:03 PM PST by grundle
“True” describes a statement or group of statements/claims know to be true.
“False” describes a statement or group of statements/claims know to be false.
“Unproven” describes a statement or group of statements/claims where there is no definitive knowledge of the truth or falsehood. In idiocy such as this, it will never be proven to be false, because one cannot prove a negative, but it is so BS paranoid-laden to be almost psychotic.
The worst part is that it diverts attention and credibility from the real crimes of the Clintons.
its not paranoid to believe there are bad people in this world. and rich and powerful people can be just as degenerate as any one else. the only difference is that it is harder to accuse some one with political power. where some one that has no money or political power cant intimidate or use there influence to kill a story. it does not mean you automatically believe what ever is said but you do hold every one to the same standards. definitely 4/5 of the speculation or more is Wacko but at least in my opinion they are speaking in code and the code is one that has been used by pedo. I even had heard of some of the code words before all of the wikkie leaks stuff was released
I stand corrected :-)
I stand corrected :-)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No Problem, it’s a very common error, but not nearly as common as misusing the word “loose” where the poster actually meant “lose”.
“When they hang you, you will lose your life unless you’re lucky and the rope around your neck is too loose.
It is not a wacko criminal conspiracy.
I spent two hours looking this up this morning.
There is smoke... and fire.
Wasn’t that Arlen Spector?
Apologize if I misspelled his name.
It has been going on for years, apparently. And this 2007 story is from the lefist CBC!
It also says that claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.
Not that the claims are false or that these despicable things never happened, just that they are highly exaggerated.
Liberal progressive SCUM!
Good point in post 32.
Good point in post 61.
Without jumping right away into “orgies” (ahem) of condemnation, we’d want to ask how they knew what kind of satanic rituals Hillary and John have been practicing.
At any rate, we don’t have to damn them; God damns just fine on His lonesome and doesn’t need our help. They came out on the losing side, no?
“This is really all paranoid BS.”
This is you on all threads involving democrat criminal charges trying to make childish dismissals like that.
Such an obvious democrat troll.
“All you closet Trotskyites obviously remember the words of your (and Hillary’s) mentor, Sol Alinsky, “When you cannot attack someone’s points, attack him personally.””
Well, faggot, you are definitely out of the democrat closet.
“The worst part is that it diverts attention and credibility from the real crimes of the Clintons.”
You come onto these democrat criminal threads always trying to divert attention away from democrats.
Such an obvious democrat troll.
I am sorry, but something is wrong with you. as much as I wish all this is not true, the image posted in the comments sections show that there is something very disgusting going on. So far I only clicked on one link that another freeper posted regarding this, and I won’t open another. The images and the people in involved are nightmarish.
For you to continually say this is all paranoid BS, makes me wonder if you are a troll. You have said this at least 10 times on these pizzagate threads. If you think it is BS, then why are you reading and commenting on it? Why are you posted articles about it? You make no sense.
Usually I don’t reply to childish name callers, but I’ll make an exception for you, because others may read your dribble.
I far from excuse Clinton Incorporated from anything illegal. I just know that there is no way any prosecutor would ever get a CONVICTION on the email issue. There would always be at least one Hillary acolyte who would hang any jury.
The “pay for play” issue, actually bribery, is a much better case. It’s simply the “Clinton Cash” matter tried in a criminal case. Showing how the Clintons made tens of millions of dollars from selling, (and selling out) US interests is an issue that can get 12 people very angry. This would be a case where the prosecutor would “First try the crime and the damages, then try the defendants.”
Plus in the CGI case, you have, at a minimum, 7 defendants. All three Clintons, Huma, Mills and 2 others. Probably more, With 7+ defendants, someone rolls and plays “Lets Make A Deal”.... and the rest “go away for a while.”
In the real world, we will get one shot at trying the Clintons for any criminal case. Bribery, not emails ,is the winning case.
IN THE REAL WORLD, the emails are never going to get any Clinton jail time.
Selling America’s uranium mine for millions of personal profit could put half a dozen people into slammerama.
Sorry I ruffled your pin feathers, but the response of the person I posted that to indicated she was not at all offended. So better watch your language, Missy, or I might send YOU a correction just to get you really pissed off!
DON:T bring Hilliary into it until there is evidence.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And how do you know there isn’t evidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.